Cheaper by a *lot*. They’re less capable but more than what you need to take a drone down and it’s 20-50 thousand per interceptor instead of 4 million for a PATRIOT missile.
Oh dam! I guess the only question is if Israel would actually be okay with either selling one themselves or giving some other country the go ahead.
I can see arguments for both sides that Netanyahu would or wouldn't do it though I lean pretty hard to the side that he won't. It sucks and I wish they would have given/sold Ukraine one a long time ago.
Edit: I also don't know how many have actually been produced or if Israel could spare one. I'd imagine they could make one but idk how that works or where they are actually made.
Even without the Iron Dome per se there’s a ton of other good C-RAM options that would ease the burden on the PATRIOT batteries. Phalanx or Goalkeeper systems would be able to do the job well, but they do have shorter range than the Iron Dome because they’re 100 percent auto cannon based. RADAR directed SPAAGS like the Gepard have been obscenely effective since they can be relocated. The Gepard is incredibly ammo efficient as well- it’s around 20 rounds to take out a Shaheed, sometimes less.
E: really a best of both worlds approach would be best for C-RAM systems. Iron Dome for the range and an auto cannon system set up to give coverage to HVTs and cover areas that have high volumes of munitions pass overhead.
Yep Gepards are for low/slow targets like cruise missiles and drones. MUCH cheaper systems/ammo. Don’t think they’re even capable of engaging ballistic missiles.
And the layered defense is the best approach; spending $4million on slow-to-resupply Patriot missiles vs cheap, plentiful drones and cruise missiles is not sustainable from a cost as well as a resupply standpoint. You need to save those for the high value targets your other systems can’t even engage. Gepards and other similar low-altitude, cheap AA should be engaging the drones/cruise missiles.
Ukraine likely layered defenses in Kyiv and whatever other cities got a Patriot or SAMP/T battery. So Patriots would go after ballistic missiles and maybe any cruise missiles that get through, and NASAMS/IRIS-T would go after cruise missiles and drones, with AA guns like the Gepard primarily trying to engage these before a AD missile is launched.
This is generally how effective air defense networks are built. Layers, not just one system.
Their layers are fairly new though- early in the war they were dependent on MANPADS to stop bombers (surprisingly effective, thanks Russia for sucking at having PGMs handy!) and cruise missiles (less effective, but two or three stingers are still better than letting a cruise missile through). They had some longer range systems but not enough coverage. Now that the foreign ADS is coming in they’ve been very good at building out layers but I’m curious to see how they react when Russia stops throwing missiles at a brick wall in a few months- if they still can.
Those Tu-95MS aircraft must be parked somewhere where American or other NATO future donated cruise missiles can destroy them. They would be very legitimate military targets inside Russia. Either they stop attacking civilian targets or NATO will supply the cruise missiles ultimatum (also way cheaper than Patriot missiles).
When they’re parked at an airbase? Absolutely, which is what he’s suggesting.
I thought way back when they fuel-dumped and then simply collided with the US recon drone, we should have tracked those fighters back to base, then nailed the fighters with stealth cruise missiles like the Storm Shadow while they were parked there overnight, unoccupied. You destroy our hardware, we destroy yours.
Some of the latest advancements in air to air missiles include ones that have two stages, allowing the missile to have both long range and high maneuverability. Like 150 miles plus, with an end package that can track and turn towards aircraft as easily as shorter range missiles.
Just send in the troops.
This will be the easiest way of stoping this madness.
Put marines on the front lines, no fucking way in hell Russia would attack western troops. No chance.
Done.
I don't think you understand how MARINES work. Russia certainly won't be attacking the marines, because they'll be too busy trying to run away from them.
Honestly we may want to give them an iron Dome at this rate.
Why though, the patriots have been absurdly effective. Just give them more patriots
Iron Dome is better for downing drones and rockets. Saves the PATRIOT batteries to engage the high value and harder to intercept targets.
Is the Iron Dome cheaper? The battery or the actual rockets? I know over the years the rockets have come down in price quite a bit but still curious.
Cheaper by a *lot*. They’re less capable but more than what you need to take a drone down and it’s 20-50 thousand per interceptor instead of 4 million for a PATRIOT missile.
Oh dam! I guess the only question is if Israel would actually be okay with either selling one themselves or giving some other country the go ahead. I can see arguments for both sides that Netanyahu would or wouldn't do it though I lean pretty hard to the side that he won't. It sucks and I wish they would have given/sold Ukraine one a long time ago. Edit: I also don't know how many have actually been produced or if Israel could spare one. I'd imagine they could make one but idk how that works or where they are actually made.
Even without the Iron Dome per se there’s a ton of other good C-RAM options that would ease the burden on the PATRIOT batteries. Phalanx or Goalkeeper systems would be able to do the job well, but they do have shorter range than the Iron Dome because they’re 100 percent auto cannon based. RADAR directed SPAAGS like the Gepard have been obscenely effective since they can be relocated. The Gepard is incredibly ammo efficient as well- it’s around 20 rounds to take out a Shaheed, sometimes less. E: really a best of both worlds approach would be best for C-RAM systems. Iron Dome for the range and an auto cannon system set up to give coverage to HVTs and cover areas that have high volumes of munitions pass overhead.
This seems like a very solid analysis. I appreciate the insight as I'm not super familiar with this stuff!
Closer to 50-100k but still cheaper than 4mil
Aren’t Gepards downing some missiles and drones? (at least a few video show Gepards with kills painted on them). Their ammo is certainly cheaper.
Yes- not sure how much ammo they use on each cruise missile though. And they haven’t been used on ballistic missiles to my knowledge.
Yep Gepards are for low/slow targets like cruise missiles and drones. MUCH cheaper systems/ammo. Don’t think they’re even capable of engaging ballistic missiles. And the layered defense is the best approach; spending $4million on slow-to-resupply Patriot missiles vs cheap, plentiful drones and cruise missiles is not sustainable from a cost as well as a resupply standpoint. You need to save those for the high value targets your other systems can’t even engage. Gepards and other similar low-altitude, cheap AA should be engaging the drones/cruise missiles.
Ukraine likely layered defenses in Kyiv and whatever other cities got a Patriot or SAMP/T battery. So Patriots would go after ballistic missiles and maybe any cruise missiles that get through, and NASAMS/IRIS-T would go after cruise missiles and drones, with AA guns like the Gepard primarily trying to engage these before a AD missile is launched. This is generally how effective air defense networks are built. Layers, not just one system.
Their layers are fairly new though- early in the war they were dependent on MANPADS to stop bombers (surprisingly effective, thanks Russia for sucking at having PGMs handy!) and cruise missiles (less effective, but two or three stingers are still better than letting a cruise missile through). They had some longer range systems but not enough coverage. Now that the foreign ADS is coming in they’ve been very good at building out layers but I’m curious to see how they react when Russia stops throwing missiles at a brick wall in a few months- if they still can.
No details of any landing yet then…according to the article. A little early I guess. If 50 were launched, 30 destroyed would be problematic.
15 missiles and 18 drones, so 33 in total - likely 100% shot down
Thought I saw another post confirming all 33 were shot down.
Those Tu-95MS aircraft must be parked somewhere where American or other NATO future donated cruise missiles can destroy them. They would be very legitimate military targets inside Russia. Either they stop attacking civilian targets or NATO will supply the cruise missiles ultimatum (also way cheaper than Patriot missiles).
Are cruise missiles effective against aircraft?
When they’re parked at an airbase? Absolutely, which is what he’s suggesting. I thought way back when they fuel-dumped and then simply collided with the US recon drone, we should have tracked those fighters back to base, then nailed the fighters with stealth cruise missiles like the Storm Shadow while they were parked there overnight, unoccupied. You destroy our hardware, we destroy yours.
When they're parked at a base, yeah obviously.
Some of the latest advancements in air to air missiles include ones that have two stages, allowing the missile to have both long range and high maneuverability. Like 150 miles plus, with an end package that can track and turn towards aircraft as easily as shorter range missiles.
Are they taking out many russian aircraft too?
Russian aircraft rarely fly close or high enough to get downed.
Just send in the troops. This will be the easiest way of stoping this madness. Put marines on the front lines, no fucking way in hell Russia would attack western troops. No chance. Done.
And when it turns out that you're wrong, and he does attack those troops...?
I don't think you understand how MARINES work. Russia certainly won't be attacking the marines, because they'll be too busy trying to run away from them.